User:Kmaypole/History of the Jews in Venice/Atian117 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Kmaypole
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kmaypole/History of the Jews in Venice

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, lots of information to introduce Jews in Venice.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Doesn't really summarize the articles topic but starts with when the Jews showed up in Venice.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, There is only one section after the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Pretty detailed but has good information

Lead evaluation
Could make it a little more organized, maybe talk about different eras of the 14th century.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, adds information about the Jews in Venice
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Addresses the timeline of when the Jews were in Venice and how they were treated

Content evaluation
Great additions to the Wiki

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, very informational
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Very good informational and neutral tone

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, sources all listed
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Great sources and references

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Maybe add more categories

Organization evaluation
Make more categories to organize the article better. maybe by beginning middle and end of the 14th century.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
No Images or Media Added

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Definitely more complete
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Gives the reader an Idea of what was happening to jews and when
 * How can the content added be improved? Add more of whatever you find

Overall evaluation
Great content! Organization would make the article great!